Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond!diamond
From: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Mark Williams C
Message-ID: <10334@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 7 Jun 89 02:48:44 GMT
References: <24094@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <431fba10.14a1f@gtephx.UUCP> <8137@boring.cwi.nl> <8530@chinet.chi.il.us> <13475@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1000@twwells.uucp> <13522@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1011@twwells.uucp> <8465@june.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@csl.sony.JUNET
Reply-To: diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 17

bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
>>#if __STDC__ <= 0       /* Or maybe even __STDC__ != 1 ? */

In article <8465@june.cs.washington.edu> pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes:

>No.  Future versions of ANSI C may use 2, 3, etc.  Your code will then
>start to break on newer compilers...

Maybe yes.  Your code will break in newer versions anyway.  Just ask
anyone who has had to revise code to work with a standardization of
existing practice, such as Fortran, Cobol, or C.

--
--
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.co.jp@relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are my own.  However, if you're reading this at Waterloo
  or Stanford, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.